Examining the benefits of athlete leaders in sport.
Crozier, Alyson J. ; Loughead, Todd M. ; Munroe-Chandler, Krista J. 等
Leadership is viewed as an important component for team success
(Weinberg & McDermott, 2002). Effective leadership can propel groups
in new directions and promote change towards achieving its objective
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985). In sport, leadership has traditionally been
assigned significant value by coaches and athletes (Chelladurai &
Riemer, 1998). Although research has shown that effective sport
leadership is fundamental to team achievement (Chelladurai & Riemer,
1998) and athlete satisfaction (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995), the
majority of research has focused mainly on the contributions of coaches
(Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). In addition to coaches, athletes have
recently been suggested as another source of leadership within teams
(Loughead & Hardy, 2005). In fact, coaches have suggested that
athlete leadership is essential for successful team performance (Gould,
Hodge, Peterson, & Petlichkoff, 1987).
Despite the fact that coaches have highlighted the importance of
having strong athlete leadership within teams (Gould et al., 1987;
Yukelson, 1997), the empirical examination of athlete leadership is in
its infancy. In order to stimulate research in this area, Loughead,
Hardy, and Eys (2006) advanced a definition of athlete leadership
viewing it as an athlete occupying a formal or informal role within a
team who influences team members to achieve a common goal. This
definition was guided by the theoretical writings of Northouse (2001),
who identified four characteristics central to leadership in that it:
(a) is a process, (b) involves influencing others, (c) occurs within the
context of a group, and (d) involves goal attainment. When leadership is
viewed in reference to these four characteristics, it becomes available
to everyone within the team context and not restricted to only formal
designated leaders such as coaches and team captains. When applied to
the context of athlete leadership, Loughead et al. (2006) viewed athlete
leadership encompassing both formal athlete leaders (e.g., captains,
co-captains, assistant captains), who are appointed to a leadership
position by the organization or team, and informal athlete leaders, who
emerge as leaders based on their interactions with their teammates.
In order to examine who serves as an athlete leader, Loughead and
Hardy (2005) asked varsity athletes to indicate which teammates served
in a leadership capacity on their teams. The majority of participants
(65.1%) indicated that both formal athlete leaders and informal athlete
leaders provided leadership. In contrast, 32.4% of participants
indicated formal athlete leaders were the only source of athlete
leadership, while only 2.5% indicated that only informal athlete leaders
served as an athlete leader to them. The results of this study suggested
that athlete leadership is performed in large part by both formal and
informal leaders.
While the Loughead and Hardy (2005) findings indicated the
pervasiveness of athlete leadership, these results did not specify how
the number of athlete leaders influenced certain outcomes. Eys,
Loughead, and Hardy (2007) examined the relationship between the number
of athlete leaders and athlete satisfaction. The participants were 219
intercollegiate athletes participating on a variety of interactive sport
teams (e.g., soccer, volleyball). Each participant was asked to indicate
the number of athlete leaders across three leadership functions:
task-related (e.g., assisting in the achievement of team goals),
social-related (e.g., fostering interpersonal relations), and team
external-related functions (e.g., representing the team in the
community). The results showed participants who perceived an equal
number of athlete leaders across all three functions were the most
satisfied with their athletic experience when compared to those athletes
who perceived an imbalance number of leaders across the three leadership
functions.
More recently, research has examined the relationship between
athlete leader behaviors and several team-related outcomes. Vincer and
Loughead (2010) examined the relationship between athlete leader
behaviors and perceptions of team cohesion in intercollegiate sports.
The results showed that athlete leaders who were perceived as
instructing, supporting, and seeking input from their peers had
teammates who felt that their teams were task and socially cohesive.
Similarly, Price and Weiss (2011) found athlete leader characteristics
(e.g., motivation, dedication) were related to two team-related outcomes
(cohesion and collective efficacy) in adolescent female soccer players.
In sum, these studies provide evidence that athlete leaders are able to
impact the team environment.
While the number of athlete leaders in sport teams has been
examined (Loughead & Hardy, 2005) and research has found it to be
related to athlete satisfaction (Eys et al., 2007), cohesion (Price
& Weiss, 2011; Vincer & Loughead, 2010), and collective efficacy
(Price & Weiss, 2011), very little is known on what constitutes the
ideal number of athlete leaders on a given sport team and its associated
benefits. Glenn and Horn (1993) have suggested that coaches require one
or two athletes within a team to direct and motivate teammates. In
contrast, Neubert (1999), in regards to informal leaders, suggested
"the more the merrier", such that having more informal leaders
per team was associated with higher levels of cohesion and greater team
performance. These two perspectives differ remarkably and require
further investigation. Therefore, based on Glenn and Horn and
Neubert's differing perspectives on the prevalence of leadership,
the purpose of the present study was to determine what athletes
perceived to be the ideal number of athlete leaders, and the benefits
associated with athlete leaders on teams.
Methods
Participants
The participants for the present study were 104 varsity athletes
(68 male and 36 female) representing three interdependent team sports;
basketball (n = 35), volleyball (n = 28), and hockey (n = 41). Of the
athletes, 18 (17.3%) self-identified as a formal leader, 57 (54.8%) as
an informal leader, and 29 (27.9%) as an athlete non-leader. All
athletes were current members of their respective teams and had an
average tenure of 1.8 years. The mean age of the sample was 20.31 years
old (SD = 1.81; range = 17-25 years of age).
Measures
Athlete leader questionnaire. In order to assess the ideal number
of athlete leaders as well as the benefits of athlete leadership, the
athletes completed an open-ended questionnaire comprised of two
sections. The first section began with a definition of formal athlete
leaders based from Loughead et al. (2006) that read, "A formal
leader is an athlete that is selected by the team or coach to be in a
leadership position, such as a captain, co-captain, or assistant
captain". The participants were then asked for their opinion of the
ideal roster size (i.e., the ideal number of individuals that should be
on their team) for their particular sport. Based on this ideal roster
size, participants were asked to identify what they believed was an
ideal number of formal leaders, and to describe the benefits associated
with this number. In the second section, a definition of an informal
athlete leader was provided based on Loughead et al.'s (2006)
definition that read, "An informal leader is established through
the interaction with team members, not formally appointed by the coach
or team". The same questions as in the second section were asked
concerning a number that constitutes the ideal number of informal
leaders and the benefits associated with this optimal number. (1)
Procedure
The university research ethics board provided approval to conduct
this study. The investigators administered the questionnaire to the
athletes on an individual basis. A letter of information and a consent
form were read and completed by each participant prior to the answering
of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed either before or
after practice. A total of 112 questionnaires were distributed and 104
(93% response rate) were returned and included in the current study.
Results and Discussion
The responses from the open-ended questionnaires were transcribed
verbatim resulting in 42 pages of double spaced text. QSR NVivo 9 (QSR
International, 2010) software was employed to assist with coding,
retrieving, and analyzing of the text. Following the procedures outlined
by Miles and Huberman (1994) and Patton (2002) for content analysis, the
raw data were organized into meaningful themes and categories. The
objective of the content analysis was "to provide knowledge and
understanding of the phenomenon under study" (Downe-Wambolt, 1992,
p. 314) and focused on the content or contextual meaning of the text
(Tesch, 1990). In the current study, the athletes' responses were
divided into text units, which consisted of a phrase, sentence, or
paragraph relating to a single concept or idea (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Text data can be found in many forms, including open-ended survey
questions (Kondracki & Wellman, 2002). Text units were grouped with
other similar text units to create lower order categories. This process
continued until it was impossible to create any new categories, thus
reaching theoretical saturation. A hierarchical tree was used to
represent the data. The root of the tree is the most general level
(i.e., higher order level) with the branches being the lower order
levels. Tesch contends that it is important for the branches to remain
flexible as this allows for the modification and refinement of the
branches until the classification system proves satisfactory to the
researchers.
A number of steps were taken to minimize researcher bias and
increase trustworthiness of the findings. Ten athletes were given the
open-ended questionnaire as a pilot study. The feedback provided by the
athletes resulted in modifying the wording of one question. Furthermore,
the primary researcher was trained in qualitative research for the
purposes of the current study, while the two other authors have
conducted and published research using a similar qualitative
methodology. Investigator triangulation was achieved with the primary
investigator coding all data and producing the hierarchical tree, and by
having the second and third authors code 20% of the data to ensure
validity. In addition, the second and third authors validated the
procedure at each stage of the data analysis through the use of critical
questioning in order to reach consensus (Biddle, Markland, Gilbourne,
Chatzisarantis, & Sparkes, 2001). Overall, there was a 95% agreement
on the coding of text units amongst the research team. When
disagreements occurred, the text units were reread and discussed until a
consensus was reached. As a percentage agreement greater than 85% is
considered "good" (MacQueen, McLellan-Lemal, Bartholow, &
Milstein, 2008), the coding process was deemed reliable.
Given that description and interpretation are comparatively linked
in qualitative research, the results and discussion sections have been
integrated in order to avoid repetition and increase readability.
Ideal Number of Athlete Leaders
While previous research has shown that athlete leadership occurs on
sport teams (e.g., Eys et al., 2007; Loughead & Hardy, 2005;
Loughead et al., 2006), the perceived benefits of having athlete
leadership has not been examined. Though these previous studies examined
the number of athlete leaders on teams, they did not examine
athletes' perceptions of how widespread athlete leadership should
be and the perceived benefits of having athlete leaders.
The results indicated that athletes perceived the ideal number of
athletes on a team (i.e., the roster size) for basketball to be
approximately 13 athletes, for hockey 22 athletes, and for volleyball to
be 12 athletes. Based on these ideal roster sizes participants indicated
how many individuals should occupy formal and informal athlete
leadership roles (Table 1). Overall, the findings indicated that 18.96%
of athletes on a roster ideally should occupy a formal athlete
leadership position. That is, there should be two athletes designated as
captains or assistant captains in basketball and volleyball and four in
hockey. As for the ideal number of informal athlete leaders, the results
showed that 66% of athletes on sports team should fill an informal
leadership role. In other words, seven athletes should serve as an
informal athlete leader on a basketball team, 17 for hockey, and eight
for volleyball. Interestingly, it should be noted that 57% of
participants indicated that the ideal number of informal athlete leaders
should include the entire roster, meaning that there could never be too
many informal athlete leaders on a team. These results support
Neubert's (1999) contention of a "more the merrier"
approach in that you can never have too many athlete leaders. However,
these numbers are in contrast to Glenn and Horn's (1993) suggestion
that teams require only one or two athletes to provide leadership. It
should be noted that Glenn and Horn make no reference as to whether they
were only referring to the number of team captains. Furthermore, the
results are similar to findings reported by Loughead et al. (2006) in
that both formal and informal athlete leaders are present on teams, with
more athletes occupying informal athlete leader roles. More
specifically, the findings of the current study suggest that 85% of
athletes on a team should occupy a leadership role, indicating that
athlete leadership is shared amongst numerous individuals on sport
teams.
Benefits of Athlete Leadership
A hierarchical tree was generated depicting the benefits of athlete
leadership (see Figure 1). The categories within the hierarchical trees
with the solid black line represent the benefits emerging for both
informal and formal athlete leaders, whereas those categories with the
dotted straight lines indicate benefits emerging from the informal
athlete leader only, while the dotted rounded lines represent benefits
emerging exclusively from the formal athlete leader.
Figure 1 consists of four levels: Level 1) The higher-order theme,
which represents the benefits of athlete leaders, both formal and
informal; Level 2) lower-order themes that include team attributes, team
structure, cohesion, team processes, individual outcomes, team outcomes,
and leader behaviors that are influenced; and Levels 3 and 4) which
represent the raw data responses. Upon inspection of the responses, it
was evident the lower-order themes (Level 2) were consistent with
Carron, Hausenblas, and Eys' (2005) linear conceptual framework for
the study of sport teams that consists of antecedents, throughputs, and
consequences. As such, Carron et al.'s (2005) conceptual framework
was used to organize the results and discussion.
Team attributes. The team attributes category represented responses
related to the benefit of having an increased presence of group
resources upon which the team could rely. Athletes indicated that having
an optimal number of athlete leaders created opportunities to share
responsibilities, give teammates options of which athlete leader to
follow or approach for advice, and increase the amount of leadership
available to the team as a whole. The following text units illustrate
the benefits of having several leaders on the team: "... it can
give you two different views to follow and two different voices to
listen to on problems", and, "... when injuries occur to
players, you need others to step up". Specifically, one athlete
suggested that having the ideal number of formal leaders, "Allows
for good leadership per person ratio". Further, the advantages of
having informal athlete leaders included the suggestion that,
"Everyone is pitching in and making contributions".
The amount of resources available within a team can contribute to
group success given its benefit to group functioning (Carron et ai.,
2005). Also, research from organizational psychology has shown that
having peer leaders (akin to athlete leaders in the present study) will
help counterbalance the influence of managers (akin to coaches) (Bennis
& Shepard, 1956; Wheelan & Johnston, 1996). In addition, peer
leaders can perform necessary tasks that are not completed by managers
(Hackman, 1992), or can replace managers when absent (Kerr &
Jermier, 1978). The findings from the current study supported these
results from organizational psychology in that having athlete leaders in
sport was beneficial to team attributes by increasing resources
available within the team.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Team structure. The category of team structure referred to how
athlete leaders were able to influence team functioning by helping
establish role clarity, group norms, and group status amongst members of
their team. In particular, role clarity included the benefits of
assisting teammates to clearly understand their responsibilities
associated with their role. While roles can emerge naturally within
groups, responsibilities are usually communicated by individuals in
positions of authority (Carron et al., 2005). By having an optimal
number of formal athlete leaders, participants indicated that role
responsibilities can be clearly articulated to other team members. In
this vein, one athlete suggested that having formal athlete leaders
allows athletes to "avoid confusion and lets the best athlete
leaders to lead for that situation". Responses also indicated that
having informal athlete leaders can increase the awareness of
responsibilities that are expected of individual team members. In
particular, having informal leaders allowed "everyone to know their
role and what to do". In fact, many responses relating to role
responsibilities alluded to the notion that having an optimal number of
athlete leaders would allow "the whole team [to have] an idea of
how to go about their jobs".
Group norms were viewed as the patterns of behavior that are
expected of team members. A quote illustrating the benefit of athlete
leaders in promoting positive group norms was, "They [athlete
leaders] will do what needs to be done to get us on the right
track". This quote indicates that athlete leaders will behave the
way they are expected to in order to help the team succeed. Further, one
athlete described the expected behavior that should occur when there are
an optimal number of athlete leaders on a team: "Everyone, being a
member of this team, should help each other out, and everyone should
take initiative". Thus, having formal and informal athlete leaders
can help enhance group norms by interacting with team members to help
explain behaviors that are deemed acceptable.
Exclusive to formal athlete leaders was the category of group
status. This is not surprising as formal athlete leaders have been
prescribed to this role by the team. A group status benefit of having
formal athlete leaders was associated with knowledge pertaining to the
hierarchy of individuals within the team. The participants noted that
having formal athlete leaders helped maintain order within the team. A
representative quote of having the ideal number of formal leaders was,
"It [group status] maintains order but avoids one person having all
of the control". Other examples suggested that participants
realized captains and assistant captains occupied "executive
positions" and that there is a certain "chain of command"
within the team. Athletes also expressed how formal athlete leaders were
selected based on their ability to lead, their knowledge of the skills
for that particular sport, and their tenure on the team.
Team cohesion. The team cohesion category represented the amount of
unity established within the team as a result of having sufficient
athlete leadership. Results from the present study indicated that having
the ideal number of formal and informal athlete leaders can increase the
team's level of cohesion, thereby increasing the closeness of the
group. Athletes expressed how having athlete leaders made everybody work
together ("Everyone on the floor cares about harmony when
playing"), be focused on the same task ("Everybody on the same
page"), and have a good amount of attraction between team members
("Better team chemistry"). One respondent noted that an
advantage of having athlete leaders as being vital for establishing
"good team cohesion within the group". As a consequently of
having strong team cohesion, one athlete indicated that "Every
player always feels like a part of the team".
The relationship between sport leadership and cohesion was first
hypothesized in Carron's (1982) conceptual framework for the study
of cohesion in sport. Since then, the majority of research in sport has
examined the association between coaching and team cohesion (Spink,
2007), with specific leadership behaviors (e.g., democratic behavior,
training and instruction) having a positive influence on both social and
task cohesion (e.g., Jowett & Chaundy, 2004; Spink, 1998). However,
more recently, the examination of sport leadership and cohesion has
included athlete leadership. Vincer and Loughead (2010) found that the
athlete leader behaviors of training and instruction, social support,
and democratic behavior positively influenced cohesion, while autocratic
behavior negatively influenced this relationship. In addition, Price and
Weiss (2011) found that certain athlete leader characteristics (e.g.,
commitment, motivation) were positively related to cohesion.
Furthermore, research examining team captains has also found a link
between their leadership and cohesion. In particular, Dupuis, Bloom, and
Loughead (2006) examined the behaviors of six ice hockey team captains
using in-depth interviews. The results indicated that, in order to be a
successful athlete leader, team captains believed that one of their
responsibilities was to foster strong cohesion amongst teammates. Team
captains also stressed the importance of informal athlete leaders on
enhancing team cohesion. Thus, the current study provides additional
empirical evidence that athlete leadership, both formal and informal,
can influence team cohesion.
Team processes. The lower order theme of team processes encompassed
the dynamic interactions that are fundamental and integral to group
involvement. This category was further divided into team goal setting
and communication. Team goal setting involved the athlete leaders
helping to establish specified targets or objectives in which to direct
the team's efforts. One text unit that encompasses this belief is
that the benefit of having an ideal number of athlete leaders was that
they, "Help set goals to where the team is heading". Research
has demonstrated that goal setting is an effective technique to enhance
performance (Kyllo & Landers, 2005). When examining the types of
goals set by athletes, Dawson, Bray, and Widmeyer (2002) found that
athletes set four types of goals: (a) individual goals for themselves,
(b) team goals for individual members, (c) team goals for the group, and
(d) individual goals for the group. Furthermore, Munroe-Chandler, Hall,
and Weinberg (2004), using an open-ended questionnaire, found that
athletes set goals in both training and competition. Specifically, these
goals incorporated skill and strategy improvement and execution, mental
preparation, effort, and subjective goals (e.g., having fun, training
well). The current study provides empirical evidence that athlete
leaders influence the team's ability to set goals; therefore future
research should focus on distinguishing how athlete leaders assist in
establishing those four types of goals and where these goals are set
(training and/or competition).
Communication entailed the giving and exchanging of information
between athlete leaders and teammates. A benefit often expressed by
athletes of having athlete leaders was exemplified in the following
responses, "There is always somebody you can talk to if you have a
problem with something". In effect, having athlete leaders provided
the opportunity for athletes to "Talk to leaders about problems you
can't with [the] coach". Specifically in relation to formal
athlete leaders, these individuals were beneficial as they act as a
liaison between the team and the coach, such that they "Talk to
coaches and give the players' point of view". Further, the
"Captain is there to help deal with situations an athlete may be
dealing with. If they can't help solve the situation then it can be
brought to the coach's attention". The benefit of having
informal athlete leaders is that "Every player has some input"
and it provides "Options for other players to speak with".
Communication within .teams has been expressed as a fundamental
component to the development and maintenance of group structure (Carron
et al., 2005). In particular, team communication has been linked to
leadership suggesting that without communication there would be no
leadership within groups or teams (Carron et al., 2005). As such, the
information exchanged by individuals (i.e., teammates) is affected by
the number of leaders (Janis, 1972, 1982). Consequently, when a team has
several leaders the quantity of information exchanged and opinions
expressed within groups are increased (Neck & Moorhead, 1995).
Further, the suggestion that athletes act as a liaison for the team has
also been found in previous research. Specifically, coaches have
expressed how athlete leaders play a vital role in communicating the
coaching staff's message to the team (Bucci, Bloom, Loughead, &
Caron, 2012). The current study supports this perspective and suggests
that having multiple leaders, both those that are formally appointed and
those that emerge informally enhances the amount of information that is
communicated within teams.
Individual outcomes. The category of individual outcomes referred
to benefits that individual team members received from having an optimal
number of athlete leaders. It included satisfaction and confidence.
Satisfaction was expressed through how content and happy individuals
were with their involvement in the team, while confidence involved their
belief in their abilities to accomplish given tasks. Text units
encompassing these themes as benefits of having multiple athlete leaders
include, "To keep the team happy", "Positive
practices", and, "Having more confidence on the playing
field". It is important to note that satisfaction was found as a
benefit of both formal and informal athlete leadership, while confidence
was exclusive to the presence of informal athlete leaders.
In regards to the athlete leadership-satisfaction relationship, Eys
et al. (2007) found that individuals who perceived a relatively equal
number of athlete leaders across three leadership functions (i.e., task,
social, and external) indicated greater satisfaction than those who
perceived a relatively unequal number of leaders. The present study
extends this literature and suggests that having the ideal number of
athlete leaders can increase the satisfaction of individual team
members.
Confidence has been identified as a critical skill for the
development and enhancement of mental toughness in elite athletes (Bull,
Shambrook, James, & Brooks, 2005; Jones, Hanton, & Connaughton,
2002). Research has also found that athletes higher in self-confidence
exert greater effort within sport (George, 1994). Furthermore, coaches
who are viewed as being effective leaders have been identified by
athletes as an important source of sport confidence (e.g., Hays,
Maynard, Thomas, & Bawden, 2007). The current study provides support
concerning the role that informal athlete leaders play in influencing a
teammate's confidence.
Team outcomes. The category of team outcomes referred to the
increased work efficiency of the team that would lead to enhanced team
productivity and work output. A representative team outcome for having
athlete leaders was, "The whole team will support each other and
give 100%". One of the highlighted areas advanced by the
participants was having an ideal number of athlete leaders leads to team
success. For example, one participants noted that having athlete leaders
"Leads to winning and overall team success. They [athlete leaders]
can help everyone to be successful". Specifically relating to
having informal athlete leaders, one text unit suggested that,
"These types of athlete leaders may be naturally able to lead a
team, thus allowing for better team performance". The results of
the present study are similar to the outcomes presented in other sport
leadership models that were originally designed when examining coaching
effectiveness. For example, Chelladurai's (1978, 1990)
Multidimensional Model of Leadership hypothesizes that effective
coaching leadership is associated with better athlete performance. In
addition, Horn's (2008) model of coaching effectiveness indicates
that coaching behavior has an ability to influence athlete performance.
Though these models suggest a relationship between coaching leadership
and performance, there is a lack of research examining this link in
respect to athlete leaders. However, coaches have suggested that
leadership among athletes is an important component of team success
(Gould et al., 1987). Further, coaches believe that athlete leaders can
impact the team by sharing their desire for success and show commitment
to achieving team goals and objectives (Bucci et al., 2012). The results
of the present study provide initial evidence that performance can be
enhanced when the ideal number of athlete leaders is present within
teams.
Leadership behaviors. The leadership behaviors category contained
responses oriented towards the actions carried out by athlete leaders.
This category was further divided into transactional leadership and
transformational leadership. Transactional leadership reflects leader
behavior that involves an interaction between leader and follower (Bass,
1997). Transactional leadership was further divided into three
subthemes, including training and instruction, social support, and
democratic behavior. Transformational leadership refers to behavior
aimed at elevating the interests of followers and motivating them beyond
their own self-interest for the good of the group (Bass, 1997). This
category was also separated into three subthemes, including idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, and individual considerations.
The transactional behaviors that emerged in the present study
included training and instruction, democratic behavior, and social
support. Training and instruction, which only emerged for the formal
athlete leaders, refers to athlete leader behavior aimed at improving
teammates' performances by teaching proper techniques and tactics
of the sport. The general statements provided by athletes indicated
formal athlete leaders were "Focused on the task" and
facilitated skill development (e.g., "They help you improve your
abilities," "Help you work on skills that need
developing"). Given this construct was only present within formal
athlete leadership, perhaps formal athlete leaders help instruct their
team members more often than informal athlete leaders as a function of
their prescribed role as leader. In line with this speculation,
Loughead, Munroe-Chandler, and Eys (2011) found that formal athlete
leaders displayed training and instruction behaviors significantly more
than informal athlete leaders. Thus, the results from this study would
indicate that it is important to develop formal athlete leaders'
ability to instruct their teammates in order to help improve
teammates' skills. The athlete leadership behavior of democratic
behavior described the decision making process of athlete leaders, which
was to consult others prior to making a team-related decision. An
example of democratic behavior as a benefit was evident in the following
text unit in that, "Leaders can consult with each other when a
problem arises". Social support is a leadership behavior
characterized by a concern for the welfare of team members and having
meaningful interpersonal relationships with others on the team. Example
text units indicated that having the ideal number of athlete leaders
can, "Balance and bring up the emotional side of the team while
also showing that they care for their teammates", and teammates can
"Look up to them for support". Democratic behavior and social
support were evident as benefits of both formal and informal athlete
leadership, indicating that these two leadership constructs are
important behaviors that all athlete leaders should exhibit.
The transformational leadership behaviors of idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, and individual consideration emerged as
benefits of both formal and informal athlete leadership. Idealized
influence leaders are those who are considered role models, or as one
participant illustrated, as "People who set the bar for teammates
to copy over time". As evidenced by the following text units, other
benefits of having athlete leaders is that they are teammates who can,
"Choose to follow and lead by their example", and,
"Individuals who we can look to for guidance". Inspirational
motivation is athlete leader behaviors that are aimed at inspiring and
encouraging their teammates to perform well. Athlete leaders can
accomplish this by enhancing the team's or an individual's
spirit, as athletes perceived that with formal and informal athlete
leaders present, you will, "Always have people cheering you on and
motivating you". Further, it was suggested that athlete leaders
have the ability to, "Pick the team up and lead them in the right
direction", and provide an "Extra source of motivation".
Leaders who illustrate individualized considerations give special
attention to individual team members by acting as a mentor, confidant,
and teacher. For example, the athlete leaders may, "Help the
inexperienced and take them under their wing and show them the
ropes". Another illustrative quote suggests that, "Having
veterans [as leaders] help the rookies cope with the league".
Further, having athlete leaders can aid their teammates by providing
"More one on one work and individual help". Taken together,
the results of the present study support Avolio's (1999)
theoretical notion that effective leaders use a variety of leadership
behaviors.
General Discussion
The results of the present study indicate the potential benefits of
having an optimal number of both formal and informal athlete leaders
within a team. Given that the athletes reported many benefits of formal
and informal athlete leaders, it suggests that both captains and other
teammates are important sources of leadership within teams. Glenn and
Horn (1993) suggested that coaches require one or two athlete leaders
within a team, whereas Neubert (1999) found that the more leaders
present, team cohesion and performance was enhanced. Further, Loughead
and Hardy (2005) found that a majority of athletes (65.1%) perceived
both formal and informal leaders as providers of leadership in team
sports. The present study provides a more detailed analysis of the
pervasiveness of leadership, indicating that approximately 85% of team
members should ideally have some form of leadership role (e.g., 19% and
66% of a team's roster should be formal and informal athlete
leaders, respectively).
Further, the finding that 85% of athletes should occupy some form
of leadership, is much greater than the Glenn and Horn (1993) suggestion
of having one or two team leaders, and provides additional insight into
the importance of athlete leadership. Moreover, it is important to note
that 57% of respondents in the present study indicated that you can
never have too many informal leaders, suggesting that the more informal
leaders on the team the better. This supports Neubert's (1999)
perspective of "the more the merrier". In some ways, the
results of the present study appear to suggest that leadership occurring
amongst athletes is a shared phenomenon. Pearce and Conger (2003) termed
this shared leadership and it is viewed as a "dynamic, interactive
influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is
to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals
or both" (p. 1). Shared leadership occurs when numerous team
members are engaged in the leadership of the team and is characterized
by the emergence of both formal and informal leaders (Pearce, 2004). To
date, there are few empirical articles examining shared leadership,
however, the research that has been conducted--primarily in
organizational psychology--have shown that shared leadership is a better
predictor of team success than the traditional leadership from above
(Pearce & Manz, 2005). Therefore, the area of shared leadership may
hold some promise as a new way of examining leadership occurring within
sport. Finally, the results of the present study are also useful for
coaches in determining the number of formal leaders to designate within
their team. The results also highlight the importance of including all
athletes when providing leadership training and not simply focusing on
the leadership development of team captains.
Though the present study extends the literature on athlete
leadership, it is not without its limitations. One limitation to the
study is the method of conducting the qualitative research. Though we
were able to get a larger cross-sectional sample using an open-ended
questionnaire, we were unable to probe participants in their answers.
Also, given the sample participants were recruited from varsity teams,
the results are not generalizable and may differ for athletes who are of
a different age group, or who participate on recreational sports teams.
Regardless of these limitations, the present study has provided
valuable information on the impact of athlete leaders within the team
environment. In particular, Figure 1, which illustrates the benefits
associated with formal and informal athlete leaders that were derived
from the present research, represents an important contribution to
research. This figure can be used to guide future athlete leadership
research. For example, the present study qualitatively indicates that
role clarity is a benefit of the having the right amount of athlete
leadership. Future research could determine the nature of the
relationships quantitatively.
References
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the
vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational
leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?
American Psychologist, 2, 130-139.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders. New York: Harper &
Row.
Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956) A theory of group
development. Human Relations, 9, 415-437.
Biddle, S., Markland, D., Gilbourne, D., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D.,
& Sparkes, A. (2001). Research methods in sport and exercise
psychology: Quantitative and qualitative issues. Journal of Sport
Sciences, 19, 777-809.
Bucci, J., Bloom, G. A., Loughead, T. M., & Caron, J. G.
(2012). Ice hockey coaches' perceptions of athlete leadership.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, 243-259. doi:
10.1080/10413200.2011.636416
Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., & Brooks, J. E.
(2005). Towards an understanding of mental toughness in elite English
cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 209-227.
doi:10.1080/10413200591010085
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations
and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D.
(2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188.
Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Eys, M. A. (2005). Group
dynamics in sport (3rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Chelladurai, P. (1978). A contingency model of leadership in
athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Waterloo,
Canada.
Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 328-354.
Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. A. (1998). Measurement of
leadership in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 227-253). Morgan-town, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Dawson, K. A., Bray, S. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (2002). Goal
setting by intercollegiate sport teams and athletes. Avante, 8, 14-23.
Downe-Wambolt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, application,
and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13, 313-321.
Dupuis, M., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2006). Team
captains' perceptions of athlete leadership. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 29, 60-78.
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2007). Athlete
leadership dispersion and satisfaction in interactive sport teams.
Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 8, 281-296. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.04.005
George, T. R. (1994). Self-confidence and baseball performance: A
causal examination of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 16, 381-399.
Glenn, S. D., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Psychological and personal
predictors of leadership behavior in female soccer athletes. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 17-34.
Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (1987).
Psychological foundations of coaching: Similarities and differences
among intercollegiate wrestling coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 1,
293-308.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. H. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organization psychology (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hays, K., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Bawden, M. (2007). Sources
and types of confidence identified by world class sport performers.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 434-456.
doi:10.1080/10413200701599173
Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In
T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 239-268).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this
thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport
performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205-218.
doi:10.1080/10413200290103509
Jowett, S., & Chaundy, V. (2004). An investigation into the
impact of coach leadership and coach-athlete relationships on group
cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 302-311.
doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.8.4.302
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership:
Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 22, 375-403.
Kondracki, N. L., & Wellman, N. S. (2002). Content analysis:
Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal
of Nutrition, Education and Behavior, 34, 224-230.
Kyllo, B. L., & Landers, D. M. (1995). Goal setting in sport
and exercise: A research synthesis-sis to resolve to controversy.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 117-137.
Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2005). An examination of coach
and peer leader behaviors in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6,
303-312.
Loughead, T. M., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. A. (2006). The nature of
athlete leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 145-158.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.02.001
Loughead, T. M., Munroe-Chandler, K. J., & Eys, M. A. (2011).
Examining the relationship between formal and informal leadership
behaviors and perceptions of team cohesion. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 33, S 167.
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan-Lemal, E., Bartholow, K., & Milstein,
B. (2008). Team-based codebook development: Structure, process, and
agreement. In G. Guest, & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for
team-based qualitative research (pp. 119-137). Plymouth, UK: AltaMira
Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Munroe-Chandler, K. J., Hall, C. R., & Weinberg, R. S. (2004).
A qualitative analysis of the types of goals athletes set in training
and competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27, 58-74.
Neck, C. P., & Moorhead, G. (1995). Groupthink remodeled: The
importance of leadership, time pressure, and methodological
decision-making procedures. Human Relations, 48, 537-557.
Neubert, M. J. (1999). Too much of a good thing or the more the
merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gender composition of informal
leadership in manufacturing teams. Small Group Research, 30, 635-646.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical
and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management
Executive, 18, 47-57.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The importance of self-
and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34,
130-140.
Address correspondence to: Todd Loughead, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada, N9B 3P4. Email: loughead@uwindsor.ca
Alyson J. Crozier
Todd M. Loughead
Krista J. Munroe-Chandler
University of Windsor
Table 1
Ideal Number of Formal and Informal Athlete Leaders in Team Sports
Sport Ideal Ideal Number of Percentage of
Roster Formal Athlete Formal Athlete
Size Leaders Leaders (a)
Basketball 12.50 2.43 19.44
Hockey 22.37 4.00 17.88
Volleyball 12.21 2.39 19.57
Sport Ideal Number Percentage of
of Informal Informal Athlete
Athlete Leaders Leaders (b)
Basketball 6.86 54.88
Hockey 17.08 76.35
Volleyball 8.32 68.14
Note. (a) Percentage of Formal Athlete Leaders refers to the
percentage of the roster size that ideally should occupy a formal
athlete leader role.
(b) Percentage of Informal Athlete Leaders refers to the
percentage of the roster size that ideally should occupy an
informal athlete leadership role.
